Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I asked for the reference in the context of the ocean warming debunking the GHG forcing, which we see was not the case.
The GHG forcing was never said to be 'debunked...' just not that important for climate change.
The GHGs are not required and a fingerprint for the forcing was debunked. If the GHGs are not required the forcing would by definition be debunked.
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It is putting words into their mouths. The paper was not on the subject of natural contribution or not, the statement is clearly a passing caveat on the subject slightly touching on the actual subject, and the "elaboration" is semantical gymnastics worthy of the Olympics which goes so far passed the normal and customary in the inclusion of all that could be considered if the reader really wanted to add it. The author would be the one to make such an elaboration given there is nothing else in the paper from which to draw a conclusion. The statement is clear English which does not need expansion or elaboration because it is not intended to be taken in the context by which you have chosen to add. That is not scientific, not ethical, and not like you at all.
Their study was the oceans can account for the land warming,
and GHGs are not required, debunking a fingerprint that GHGs should cause landmasses to warm faster than the oceans. This was their research goal in this paper, and they stated that the oceans could have been warmed by a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors (though it was not the subject they were researching).
It is implied that there is still uncertainty with how much of the oceanic warming is anthropogenic and natural as stated here:
"Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation"Quote:
Quote:
No, the "at least" does not make such a statement. It says at a minimum an undetermined portion of the warming should not be excluded from consideration as being natural.
At least means at the very minimum. It does not state at the very maximum. Being at the very minimum means that there can be values higher than the minimum.
The value is by definition UNDETERMINED by the term "some" and the phrase "at least" references the level of exclusion.
Login
Register
FAQ
